My first roll in years

iml

iml

Well-known
Local time
1:35 PM
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
950
Well, I finally got round to developing my first roll of film for many years. Ilford FP4 at ISO 125 in DD-X at the recommended 10 mins (thought I'd keep it simple to start with). It was fun, and the results look OK, although the scans are pretty grainy. This may be because I'm using a cheap scanner (Epson v350), or maybe because I don't really have my head around scanning yet, or maybe my developing is to blame (I haven't had a chance to get prints made yet, which may give me a clue about that).

All comments welcome, I posted the best of the images here:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6613

I used the bundled Epson Scan software to do the scanning. I read somewhere that it was best to scan b&w images in 24-bit colour and then convert them in PS or Elements, so that's what I did, but it seemed I had to do quite a lot of cleaning in Elements to get rid of various nasties, and the images look a bit grainier than expected. I suspect this is because the scanner doesn't support any kind of digital ICE, but maybe I'm doing something wrong. Any users of Epson Scan software have any pointers to their workflow so I can try some alternatives?


Ian
 
Last edited:
My Epson scan software has a grain reduction option (I have an old epson 3200).
Though I generally use Noise Ninja to reduce the grain.
 
Thanks for that. My Epson software has a grain reduction option too, didn't notice that before! Will give it a try when I get a chance to have another go on the scanner.

Ian
 
Just tried a demo of Noise Ninja. It works very well. Thanks Mark, I feel a purchase coming on.

Ian
 
Ian - Congratulations on getting that first roll developed! Hope it's as much fun as it used to be. I always love opening the tank and seeing images there!

I like the photos you posted, especially Hastings Beach. That one definitely has a 'mood' about it I like.

I see what you mean about grain though. It's a bit more than I would've expected with FP4 & DD-X. However, it's worth trying again I think. I use DD-X and find it so dang easy! Hope to see more photos soon.
 
Thanks Steve. I'm pretty sure it's the scanning rather than the developing, although I'll probably drop the time a little bit for the next roll to see what happens. The negs look pretty clean, although it's hard to tell for sure without getting some prints made.

Noise Ninja seems to help a lot. Here's a before and after shot.

Ian
 

Attachments

  • img051.jpg
    img051.jpg
    208.9 KB · Views: 0
  • img051_filtered.jpg
    img051_filtered.jpg
    191 KB · Views: 0
Wow Ian! Noise Ninja really did seem to make a difference. Thanks for posting the direct comparison. I may take a look at that...
 
Hi Ian,
I find that it's best to scan at about 2400dpi and then downsize the image. Noise Ninja can be effective, but don't go much above 3 to reduce the noise or the pictures will start looking plastic.
Best wishes,
Roman
 
Thanks Roman, I'll try that. I scanned at 300dpi but will try your suggestion. I'm going to concentrate today on rescanning half a dozen or so of the best images and experimenting with all the options.

Ian
 
The graininess was reduced, but the contrast, sharpness and detail were really messed up. Look at the doors on the sheds to see what I mean.
 
You're right, but I think that may be down to applying the noise reduction right at the end, to an image that I'd already sharpened and contrast tweaked. I'm experimenting at the moment and think I can do better.

The irony is I do hardly any manipulation of my digital images. Looks like film scanning is much harder work :)

Ian
 
Phew, too many options. I think I need to try a better scanner at some point, see what difference that makes. I'm getting pretty good results now, but there's too much post-processing involved for my liking. I'm getting better at it though.

Ian
 
Think I've got it now. Scanned at 4800 dpi as 24 bit colour, downsized and converted to b&w in Elements, a small amount of USM and contrast tweaking, then a very tiny bit of noise reduction in Noise Ninja, with no additional sharpening. Seems to work and takes longer to type than to do. Another before and after attached, the first one is my original 300 dpi scan from yesterday with no noise reduction, the second the most recent.

Ian
 

Attachments

  • img051.jpg
    img051.jpg
    208.9 KB · Views: 0
  • img065_filtered.jpg
    img065_filtered.jpg
    253.1 KB · Views: 0
Hello Ian,
Just a few obervations about FP4.
It's a brilliant film in good light, but there has n't been a lot of that on Hastings beach lately.
It will stand a lot of dodging, burning and contrast tweaking in an enlarger, but if you try the same treatment in photoshop the grain rears it's head. I have noticed that the prints seem a little less grainy than the screen image.
Conclusion; avoid too much post processing by waiting for the light. A yellow filter and lense hood will improve contrast in the sky so avoiding the need for burning in. If your scanner has sharpening switch it off.
Hope this helps,
Regards Richard F.
 
iml said:
Think I've got it now. Scanned at 4800 dpi as 24 bit colour, downsized and converted to b&w in Elements, a small amount of USM and contrast tweaking, then a very tiny bit of noise reduction in Noise Ninja, with no additional sharpening. Seems to work and takes longer to type than to do. Another before and after attached, the first one is my original 300 dpi scan from yesterday with no noise reduction, the second the most recent.

Ian
Click to expand...
I scan at 16 bit grayscale with low sharpening and create a Tiff file. I'm not sure what the advantage of colour scanning a BW neg is except it creates a much bigger file. I also check the levels to make sure all the detail on the neg is going to be scanned (ie no clipping at the black and white points). You can adjust this later with levels and curves in photoshop.

Too much noise ninja (ie the default settings) does look rather plastic and destroys detail. You should also leave the main sharpening until the very end of the editing process and depending on what size you intend to print at.

I apply NN first with its sharpening algorithm turned off and reduce the strength to about half to three quarters on the top 2 sliders (leaving the 3rd slider alone).

After this I apply sharpening in photoshop. That way you have a bit more control over the final look of the grain and how sharp the image needs to be.

I have tried different ways of arranging the various steps, but this always works best for me. YMMV.

Cheers.
 
fishric said:
Conclusion; avoid too much post processing by waiting for the light.
Click to expand...

hi Richard. These shots were actually taken a a couple of weeks ago, when there still was some light! My problem was graininess even without any post-processing, straight from the scanner with no sharpening or any other tweaking applied. Scanning at a higher DPI seems to have largely cured that though, the results are looking consistently better. Useful info about FP4 and post-processing, I'll keep that in mind.

When the light finally improves again, and I've got my head around FP4, it'll be time to move on to the rolls of Pan F I have in the fridge :)

Mark: thanks for your input. This cheap scanner doesn't seem to produce as good b&w tonality scanning as b&w as a 24 bit colour scan converted in Elements, although I'm sure a better scanner would produce a better result.

I'll try applying USM at the end again. It's what I usually do, although in this case I preferred the result applying a very small amount of noise reduction after the sharpening. I suspect this may vary according to the shot though, and all of this is for screen rather than print, that'll no doubt be different again. Your settings for Noise Ninja are pretty much what I settled on too, any more than that seems pretty dramatically destructive in virtually every case.

Thanks for all the input, film scanning is totally new to me.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom